Odds this case paves the way to some sort of payment structure within college athletics? Greater than revisiting one and done?
I just listened to the Eye on College Basketball podcast, and the NBC Sports podcast (two of my favorites), and I just don't get this line of thinking.
The thought-process of amateurism is the root cause of this just doesn't make any sense to me. I mean, it enables the possibility for it to occur, but by definition for a rule to be broken it has to exist in the first place. So, what is enabling the rule to be broken is the question that should be asked. It can, and should, be questioned, but people using it as a scapegoat in this case are, in my opinion, missing the point.
Why is the focus not on just following the rules? Along those lines, want to get the violent crime rate in Chicago to go down? Just remove rules against violent crimes is the solution I guess. These federal crimes of bribery and the like, want them to go away? Well I guess the solution is to remove the laws about them, and the rate of those crimes would drop to 0.
Removing the rules because people break them isn't a justifiable reason.
My question would be what percentage of kids are we talking about here? It sounds as though the majority of these cases, even through reporters talking about stories they've heard, are about the high-level guys. Yes, you'll always have "the best" players from the pool that will be attending schools, so there will still be the opportunity for corruption.
But people keep acting like amateurism is the root cause. I disagree. The lack of punishment and deterrent was, in my opinion, the biggest factor. I'm guessing we'll see a much more level playing field, at least in the short term (until the fear of the deterrent subsides).
Last edited: